Laws against cell phone use while driving can’t curb teen texters

On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association released statistics on using mobile devices while driving, and the results show overwhelmingly that it's hard to get people to put down cellphones while they drive. At any given moment, the NHTSA's “Safety in Numbers” publication reports, 660,000 people are talking on hand-held cellphones while driving.

The administration also reported that one in two drivers will answer calls, and one in four drivers will initiate calls while driving. Young drivers, however, are much more prone to distraction. Three in five young drivers will answer calls, and one in three will initiate calls. Despite many states enacting laws that forbid using hand-held phones while driving, the NHTSA reported that the number of young drivers observed using a device while driving had doubled since 2010, to two in five. “Young drivers” are not explicitly defined in the published statistics, but are defined elsewhere on the NHTSA's “distraction.gov” site as drivers who are age 20 and younger.

The NHTSA reports that “in 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,267 in 2010.” Of those 3,331 people, 12 percent were reported to have been using cellphones, and over half of the drivers in those crashes were between 15 and 29 years old. As the Los Angeles Timespoints out, there doesn't seem to be much proof that distracted driving laws, which have been enacted in 39 states and prohibit texting or using hand-held phones in some form or another, have actually decreased the number of distracted drivers on the road.

One statistic that seems to buck that assumption, however, is that in 2011 only “387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010,” writes distraction.gov. The NHTSA has long pushed for stricter enforcement of using mobile phones while driving, but it appears that drivers are a little less enthusiastic about those kinds of rules.

115 Reader Comments

You're putting other people's lives in danger as well as your own when you text while driving.

People used to think drinking and driving was ok, but public opinion has changed. A combination of public education and harsh penalties, especially if you are involved in an accident while texting is probably the answer.

If you are involved in an accident wile texting that results in a death, then a manslaughter charge is appropriate.

It will take time but with constant pressure from family and peers (not to mention the continuing evolution of both cars and phones) we will eventually see a reduction in phone-related accidents. Legislate all you want, you're not going to see any meaningful change until a majority of people view a given thing as unacceptable.

As more and more people begin to view cellular use while driving like smoking in public places or the use corporal punishment you'll begin to see less and less of it overall.

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

A true story a driving instructor told me once: A teenage girl is driving with him. She has her purse in the back seat, and the phone in the purse. Phone rings, she drop everything she's doing (driving) and literally throws herself to the back seat to answer the phone. Nothing happened luckily (except the instructor getting upset).

You're putting other people's lives in danger as well as your own when you text while driving.

People used to think drinking and driving was ok, but public opinion has changed. A combination of public education and harsh penalties, especially if you are involved in an accident while texting is probably the answer.

If you are involved in an accident wile texting that results in a death, then a manslaughter charge is appropriate.

The problem is obviously not specific to phone use, this is only in 12% of cases the cause of being distracted. It would be better to use a broader approach and actually teach people to act responsibly.

And you will *never* get people to not use their phones through hours of boredom anyway. Maybe with better voice interfaces, but talking and listening to the cloud while driving won't be without distraction either, especially when this will work better.

But the major point would be to make people act rationally and follow rules that make sense, even if they don't like them. Good luck with that, but money (for tickets) talks a convincing language usually.

If you are involved in an accident wile texting that results in a death, then a manslaughter charge is appropriate.

I'd say it should be manslaughter if it's determined you're at fault, irrespective of what causes the fault.

Talking to your passenger, under the influence, operating a phone, insufficient maintenance (e.g. brakes), whatever. There shouldn't be special cases, like killing someone because you were dumb and texting is worse than killing someone because you were dumb and didn't get your brakes fixed.

The availability of affordable self-driving cars will eventually solve both these problems. It will work because it doesn't try to stop people from doing what they want to do, but by allowing them to stop doing what they obviously would rather not be doing (controlling the vehicle).

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

If you are involved in an accident wile texting that results in a death, then a manslaughter charge is appropriate.

I'd say it should be manslaughter if it's determined you're at fault, irrespective of what causes the fault.

Talking to your passenger, under the influence, operating a phone, insufficient maintenance (e.g. brakes), whatever. There shouldn't be special cases, like killing someone because you were dumb and texting is worse than killing someone because you were dumb and didn't get your brakes fixed.

Indeed. There should also be no lesser charge of "vehicular manslaughter" available. I mean, why exactly does someone's choice of murder weapon factor into the decision of how long they should spend behind bars?

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

A true story a driving instructor told me once: A teenage girl is driving with him. She has her purse in the back seat, and the phone in the purse. Phone rings, she drop everything she's doing (driving) and literally throws herself to the back seat to answer the phone. Nothing happened luckily (except the instructor getting upset).

Youth is wasted on the young. Or wait..

And she probably placed the blame on the person who called her rather than herself.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

The obvious problem with this is proving that you were driving while sending texts while travelling at 70mph. Even aside from texting while a passenger, I've handed my phone to passengers to check and respond to texts if I had a reason to think something important might come through.

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

I'm more of a proponent of "throw them in jail for life if they're caught texting and driving". They're already acting is if texting is important enough to risk their lives over, so whats it matter if we just add a little more risk to the equation? If they value their lives, maybe they will be a little more careful with them.

Oh, and for all you Constitution buffs out there, its "cruel and unusual punishment". If you apply the law to everybody, its no longer unusual.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

The obvious problem with this is proving that you were driving while sending texts while travelling at 70mph. Even aside from texting while a passenger, I've handed my phone to passengers to check and respond to texts if I had a reason to think something important might come through.

It's actually not difficult. SMS records are easily available from cellular carriers and can be correlated in time to when the accident occured. This has been used routinely when texting has been suspected. Here's an example where cell phone records were used to prove a train conducter was texting right before a crash. And this was back in 2008.

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

No, there is no sensible texting. Period. There is simply no excuse for not being in full control of your 2,000+ lb high-speed killing machine at all times.

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

No, there is no sensible texting. Period. There is simply no excuse for not being in full control of your 2,000+ lb high-speed killing machine at all times.

My 2000lb+ vehicle is in perfect control sitting at 0 mph during a stop light.

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

No, there is no sensible texting. Period. There is simply no excuse for not being in full control of your 2,000+ lb high-speed killing machine at all times.

My 2000lb+ vehicle is in perfect control sitting at 0 mph during a stop light.

No it is not. You are not aware of your surroundings. There may be circumstances around you that require a response, and you would not be able to respond.

It's going to solve problems as much as posting and enforcing speed limits do. People will speed. People will text. Make sure people are aware it is bad. Enforce without being an ass. Attitudes will change.

It will never ever ever be eliminated. Just like speeding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with driving at a fast speed.

Bad, untrained, and incompetent drivers make speeding dangerous. But you can say those drivers are dangerous any time they get behind a wheel whether or not they speed.

To equate speeding and distracted driving is absurd.

If someone texts responsibly then what? At stop lights? Stop signs? Speeding is speeding. There is sensible speed, sensible texting. The absurdness is of you not understanding the issue.

No, there is no sensible texting. Period. There is simply no excuse for not being in full control of your 2,000+ lb high-speed killing machine at all times.

My 2000lb+ vehicle is in perfect control sitting at 0 mph during a stop light.

No it is not. You are not aware of your surroundings. There may be circumstances around you that require a response, and you would not be able to respond.

The only thing that would require a response is the stop light at which case I would be checking it every 2 seconds or so as i'm typing.

The only other thing that would be a problem is someone possibly slamming into the back of me but if the light is red the best thing to do in that scenario is to keep your foot firmly planted on the brakes.

My 2000lb+ vehicle is in perfect control sitting at 0 mph during a stop light.

I'm very happy for you; I hope that means you're also someone who's paying attention when stopped and notices when your light turns green or, in the case of a stop sign, that it's safe/legal to proceed - unfortunately, I see enough drivers who can't handle those simple tasks when they're *not* texting to be concerned that adding an extra distraction to the mix can't be good. Hell, I've run into lots of people who haven't mastered the art of walking down the sidewalk when texting (technically they've run into me...when I see one coming I let them bounce off me unless they're bigger, which is pretty rare).

IMO, texting is best left to when you're pulled over and out of the traffic flow - not at a stop sign/traffic light. Since you and I aren't in agreement on this, I'll just leave it at that and wish you well.

The only other thing that would be a problem is someone possibly slamming into the back of me but if the light is red the best thing to do in that scenario is to keep your foot firmly planted on the brakes.

That's quite a naive view of the situation. There is more than just you, the guy behind you, and the stop light in the equation.

The bottom line is, any time you are not aware of your surroundings, you are putting yourself and others in danger.

There is technology to block cell phone use - why not make that mandatory in all cars such that the cell signal will be defeated if the engine is running. Sure, there are rare instances, such as "unintended" acceleration, where the driver might want to call for help, but compare the number of those to the deaths/accidents caused by mindless use of cells while driving - the math is compelling.

Because the passenger shouldn't be blocked from using their cell phone in the case of a long road trip.

This would also cause problems for emergency vehicles that have to operate within near these other vehicles.

Not only that this would be so easy to rip out of a vehicle it's not even funny.

The only other thing that would be a problem is someone possibly slamming into the back of me but if the light is red the best thing to do in that scenario is to keep your foot firmly planted on the brakes.

That's quite a naive view of the situation. There is more than just you, the guy behind you, and the stop light in the equation.

The bottom line is, any time you are not aware of your surroundings, you are putting yourself and others in danger.

What exactly am I looking out for at a traffic light besides the light?

You can't just race off into oncoming traffic because someone behind you isn't stopping at the light.

If you can't keep enough focus on the light to know when it's changing then no you shouldn't be texting and driving, but other than that your vehicle is no danger to anyone else sitting at a red light.

Everyone shouldn't be banned from doing something over the lowest common denominator. It's idiotic and nannyish.

There is technology to block cell phone use - why not make that mandatory in all cars such that the cell signal will be defeated if the engine is running. Sure, there are rare instances, such as "unintended" acceleration, where the driver might want to call for help, but compare the number of those to the deaths/accidents caused by mindless use of cells while driving - the math is compelling.

How would you propose we handle emergency 911 calls? The answer to all this is tougher laws and better education through shock media.

Personally, I think that if you're at fault in an accident then it should be determined if you had recently been SENDING texts. The carriers should make some sort of facility available to law enforcement for such purposes.

It should only tell them what time a text was sent, no other information, and there should be considerable oversight. But in my opinion it has to be done, too many people are getting hurt or worse. I have a friend whose twice rear ended someone (VERY minor) because he was texting, and he still doesn't get it.

It would be a tough sell in today's privacy conscientious environment, but it's needed. I'm also very concerned about privacy going forward with technology, so I think it would have to be limited to (Text Sent: 4:08pm), something like that.

Then, send out texts while driving and cause an accident and you don't get to drive for a while. Kill someone and go to jail.....

I'm more of a proponent of "throw them in jail for life if they're caught texting and driving". They're already acting is if texting is important enough to risk their lives over, so whats it matter if we just add a little more risk to the equation? If they value their lives, maybe they will be a little more careful with them.

Oh, and for all you Constitution buffs out there, its "cruel and unusual punishment". If you apply the law to everybody, its no longer unusual.

To all the semantics buffs out there, the use of "and" here equates to a logical OR and not an exclusive OR (XOR). This means a punishment fails the check and is forbidden if either conditon is true, regardless of the state of the other condition.

One statistic that seems to buck that assumption, however, is that in 2011 only “387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010

Is the NHTSA citing that as evidence that laws against cell phone usage/texting while driving are working? Because that's very weak evidence.... two data points don't make a trend.

I was going to mention this earlier.

It's a prime example of correlation =/= causation.

Some years are simply better than others and there is no real way to tell if those accidents were prevented by people not using their phones because of the law or simply not using their phones regardless.

One statistic that seems to buck that assumption, however, is that in 2011 only “387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010

Is the NHTSA citing that as evidence that laws against cell phone usage/texting while driving are working? Because that's very weak evidence.... two data points don't make a trend.

I was going to mention this earlier.

It's a prime example of correlation =/= causation.

Some years are simply better than others and there is no real way to tell if those accidents were prevented by people not using their phones because of the law or simply not using their phones regardless.

The best that can be done is guessing.

Knowing it is illegal will have people that with do it more sensibly if they do it.

Looking at a text at a stoplight isn't a big issue. It's all about being sensible. People put makeup on at traffic lights. Eat. Do so much when driving. Should you have children in a car when driving because they are often a distraction? Sensible?

People should not be distracted and driving. It is dangerous. Ideals sure but something that should be worked towards with education and enforcement.

Some years are simply better than others and there is no real way to tell if those accidents were prevented by people not using their phones because of the law or simply not using their phones regardless.

The best that can be done is guessing.

We would need data from multiple (all?) states before and after laws went into effect, including those that never enacted such a law. This can help to tease out regional trends from the laws' impacts because the laws went into effect at different times. For example, if two similar bordering states both have similar decreases and only one had a cell phone law, this would be evidence against the efficacy of the law.

As a cyclist, I would like to see a mix of the three. Or you could spin the texting fortune wheel.

As a motorist, I think we should put more laws in place to limit the usage of slow vehicles which increase danger on roadways. Penalties should look roughly the same. Bicycles shouldn't be on roads with speed limits above 30 MPH or without a dedicated lane. They shouldn't cross intersections and drift out and back into the lane. They should not be allowed to ride 2 or more abreast within a lane. As slower traffic, they should follow existing laws requiring slower traffic to pull over and yield to other traffic traveling at the common speed. Similarly, bicycles do not have the acceleration characteristics to safely make right turns at red lights, and should be barred from that maneuver as well (the most common near accident derp move I have observed).

The number of times I have been scared shitless by the dumb antics of a cyclist whose impending death might end up on my conscious is absurd. For every several thousand cars I encounter daily on the roadways, I have a near miss or other brakes and tire screeching interaction maybe once a year. For bicycles, I would be surprised if it was under one in every three times I am on the road with a serious cyclist where there are tense moments on the road, emergency swerving and braking due to a cyclist ignoring common sense, driving courtesy, and the letter of the law.

To clarify: serious cyclist means the sport or competitive types in biking shorts on expensive kit. Mexicans on Huffys and children seem to understand P=MV and F=MA just fine and not get into dumb situations.

Some years are simply better than others and there is no real way to tell if those accidents were prevented by people not using their phones because of the law or simply not using their phones regardless.

The best that can be done is guessing.

We would need data from multiple (all?) states before and after laws went into effect, including those that never enacted such a law. This can help to tease out regional trends from the laws' impacts because the laws went into effect at different times. For example, if two similar bordering states both have similar decreases and only one had a cell phone law, this would be evidence against the efficacy of the law.

That is something I would genuinely like to see happen, and would be data that i'd be more likely to take seriously.

There is technology to block cell phone use - why not make that mandatory in all cars such that the cell signal will be defeated if the engine is running. Sure, there are rare instances, such as "unintended" acceleration, where the driver might want to call for help, but compare the number of those to the deaths/accidents caused by mindless use of cells while driving - the math is compelling.

What a fine idea... What about passengers in the car? Can they text or talk? What about a passenger calling 911 as the car passes an accident?